Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mae Harrington


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Merged and Redirected to List of American supercentenarians.  BLACK KITE  12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mae Harrington

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another unreferenced stub on a very old person. A google search throws up no reliable sources, let alone non-trivial coverage therein, so she fails WP:BIO. She is listed in List of the oldest people, which is quite sufficient. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 
 * Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * keep I found http://www.grg.org/Adams/USStateOldest.htm and others pretty fast, and we do have many other articles on similar people. See Oldest people for a whole lotta wikilinks to oldest people.  Needs citations, not deleting.  Pharmboy (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The http://www.grg.org/Adams/USStateOldest.htm ref is just a list of dates, age, sex and race, which is fine for verifying the facts, but is too trivial to establish notability per WP:BIO. I know that google search throws up hits on blogs, wikipedia mirrors etc, but if there is to be a standalone article we need substantial coverage in reliable sources, and so far we haven't got it. The claim that her longevity record was only recognised after her death makes me think that any substantial coverage is unlikely, because usual news reporting of these people is either an obituary or a soft-news piece in the the last years of their life, and that doesn't seem likely to have happened in this case. "Needs citations" is true, but in this case there appear not to be any available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I did find one newspaper article about her on Newsbank. It doesn't show up on Google News, but it does exist:
 * Jonas Kover. "Clinton woman's 'everyday' life ends at age 113 in nursing home". Observer-Dispatch. January 1, 2003. Section A, Page 01. Zagalejo^^^ 23:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done with the search, but an obituary in a county newspaper falls well short of the "substantial" coverage required by WP:BIO. If more substantive refs are found at a later date, the article could of course be recreated, but right now there isn't enough to justify an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I milked what I could out of that. Not sure if that's enough... Zagalejo^^^ 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Per country holder. I would like Wikipedia to be an archive of reliable sources anyways. Neal (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete The refs mentioned in the article or in this AFD are mere obituaries or directory listings and do not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO. Getting to be really old existing in a nursing home does not justify an encyclopedia article. Inclusion in a list of old people is appropriate and sufficient. Edison (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and try and add more references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply'. There is no evidence so far that any coverage exists other than trivial, directory-style coverage and one short obit in a county newspaper, so waiting for more refs may be like waiting for Godot. If substantial coverage in reliable sources is found at a later date, a new article can of course be written. Right now, the only verifiable info in the article is what can be found in lists such as those maintained by GRG, and per WP:BIO that's not enough for a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians. This person is no more notable than anyone else on that list. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. As per users "Pharmboy", "NealIRC" and "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )", plus she was the oldest living American and is in the top 100 all time. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note User:Bart Versieck/Extremely sexy has voted either "strong keep" or "very strong keep" on every AfD on a very old person in which he has participated in the last few months:, , , , , , , , . Bart, is there any way in which this particular "very strong keep" is different from the others? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't speak for Bart, but no, there is no difference. We (him and I) value the supercentenarians by age and rank pretty equally. ;D Neal (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep -I think that being the oldest person in the US is reasonably notable. WP:BIO allows for exceptions and I am happy if this is one. TerriersFan (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians--CastAStone//(talk) 21:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.